Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 11190 invoked from network); 18 Aug 2004 15:19:56 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (209.237.227.199) by minotaur-2.apache.org with SMTP; 18 Aug 2004 15:19:56 -0000 Received: (qmail 75002 invoked by uid 500); 18 Aug 2004 15:19:00 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-apr-dev-archive@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 74951 invoked by uid 500); 18 Aug 2004 15:19:00 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@apr.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: Delivered-To: mailing list dev@apr.apache.org Received: (qmail 74912 invoked by uid 99); 18 Aug 2004 15:18:59 -0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=10.0 tests= X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org X-AuthUser: chip@force-elite.com Subject: Re: RC5 From: Paul Querna To: Joe Orton Cc: dev@apr.apache.org In-Reply-To: <20040818150521.GB5803@redhat.com> References: <411761A2.4070600@jetnet.co.uk> <20040818150521.GB5803@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 08:18:51 -0700 Message-Id: <1092842331.7095.20.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 1.5.90 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Virus-Checked: Checked X-Spam-Rating: minotaur-2.apache.org 1.6.2 0/1000/N On Wed, 2004-08-18 at 16:05 +0100, Joe Orton wrote: > On Mon, Aug 09, 2004 at 12:36:02PM +0100, David Reid wrote: > > So, apart from the complaints about apr-util, are people happy that apr > > RC5 is OK? > > +1, RC5 looks good to me. testall passes in both apr and apr-util on > RHEL3/{amd64,i686,ppc}, {RHEL2.1,FC1}/x86. If you roll an RC6 then > please pick up apr/test/testpoll.c:r1.34 which is needed to get the > tests to pass with the epoll-based poll backend on a 2.6 kernel. > I thought the apr_pollset changes that add EPoll and KQueue support were not part of 1.0?